Discourse Analysis in the Quality of Expected Learning

RESEARCH
● Ana
E. Schalk & Carlos Marcelo
Santiago (Chile) & Sevilla (Spain)
Received: 2010-02-13 / Revised: 2010-04-24
Accepted: 2010-05-27 / Published: 2010-10-01
DOI:10.3916/C35-2010-03-06
Asynchronous Discourse Analysis in the
Quality of Expected Learning
Análisis del discurso asíncrono en la calidad de los aprendizajes esperados
ABSTRACT
Universities are gradually implementing virtual learning processes. However, research still remains limited in examining the internal
processes that occur in learning in virtual environments. This article presents an investigation that seeks to describe the relationship
between the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in training experiences in e-learning, and the quality of learning offered and achieved. The main objective was to determine how interactions in online environments add quality to the learning of students. For this, a descriptive investigation was done that combines qualitative and quantitative phases, analyzing more
than 10,000 messages of 171 participants from four postgraduate courses developed in the form of e-learning. Asynchronous communication was analyzed through a category system that analyzes the social, cognitive and didactic discourse online. Among the
research findings, there highlights a positive relationship between quality and quantity of speech of the participants and the quality
of learning achieved and reflected in the different levels of assessment. We can conclude that there exists the need to make an
analysis, that goes beyond the written discourse in asynchronous communication to establish relations with both cognitive and
social learning of students. Moreover, we conclude the necessity to train teachers to deal with the processes of online communication.
RESUMEN
Las Universidades están implementando de forma progresiva procesos de formación virtual. Sin embargo, todavía resulta escasa
la investigación que analiza los procesos internos en lo que se produce el aprendizaje en ambientes virtuales. En este artículo se
presenta una investigación que busca describir la relación entre la calidad de la interacción, en los foros de discusión asincrónica
en experiencias de formación en e-learning, y la calidad de los aprendizajes propuestos y logrados. El principal objetivo consistió
en conocer, de qué forma las interacciones en los espacios virtuales, aportan calidad a los aprendizajes de los alumnos. Para ello
se realizó un estudio descriptivo que combina una fase cualitativa y una cuantitativa, analizando más de 10.000 mensajes en 171
participantes de cuatro cursos de postgrado desarrollados en la modalidad de e-learning. Se analizó la comunicación asíncrona, a
través de un sistema de categorías que contenía dimensiones sociales, cognitivas y didácticas del discurso on-line. Entre los resultados de la investigación se destaca una relación positiva entre la calidad y cantidad del discurso de los participantes y la calidad
de los aprendizajes obtenidos y reflejados en las diferentes instancias de evaluación. Podemos concluir la necesidad de hacer un
análisis, más allá del discurso escrito, para establecer relaciones con los aprendizajes tanto cognitivos como sociales de los alumnos.
Por otra parte concluimos la necesidad de formar a los docentes para abordar los procesos de comunicación on-line.
KEYWORDS / PALABRAS CLAVE
E-learning, quality learning, interaction, asynchronous communication, on-line education, knowledge building.
E-learning, calidad del aprendizaje, interacción, comunicación asincrónica, formación on-line, construcción de conocimiento.
❖ Ph.D. Ana Elena Schalk Quintanar. Director of Development and Entrepreneurship at the University of
the Pacific in Santiago de Chile ([email protected]).
❖ Ph.D. Carlos Marcelo García. Senior Lecturer of Didactics and School Organisation of the Faculty of
Educational Sciences at the University of Seville (Spain) ([email protected]).
Comunicar, n. 35, v. XVIII, 2010, Scientific Journal of Media Literacy; ISSN: 1134-3478; pages 131-138
Comunicar, 35, XVIII, 2010
132
1. Introduction
This re search adds to the line of work, which
since the late 90’s, began to analyze and assess the
relevance of computer-mediated education. From
Mason (1990) there has been offered a framework for
understanding computer-mediated communication. It
has been a distinction between synchronous and asynchronous communication. Research proposals like
those of Van Dijk (2000) and Shotsberger (2001) have
explored discourse analysis from different points of
view. This helped to understand that it is not the
amount of interaction but the quality of them, which
allows us to investigate and try to understand how the
learning process occurs through the interaction and
exchange of ideas in computer-mediated communication (Cebrián, 2009) .
Gunawardena and his colleagues (1997) undertook the task of defining a model that through the instrument could be used to examine the construction of
knowledge. They are based on a grounded theory and
use their stages of discussion to determine the weight
of knowledge built. This analytical model offers
important elements to understand the construction
process, both for teaching and learning in collaborative
environments, since it is centered on the interaction as
a vehicle for building knowledge, it detects the knowledge building that arises in a conference; it is very
appropriate to consider the context of learning and has
a relative strength in its framework. In 1999, Rourke
and others identified three elements for the community
of inquiry. The other two were the cognitive presence
and the teaching presence. They stressed the importance of social presence to motivate students in their
learning process. This social dimension is configured
in three categories: emotional responses, interactive
responses and responses of cohesion.
Later on, Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2001)
identified the cognitive presence in the community of
the inquiry model. Their presence reflects higherorder knowledge and an application that is usually
acquired based on the literature and research related
to critical thinking. They worked out four phases: initiation, exploration, integration and resolution. They
felt that the complete message would be the unit of
analysis of their work. It was tested in two separate
studies and their reliability bases were measured by the
rate of Holsti and of Kappa, obtaining good level
results at both.
At the same time, Anderson and others (2001)
developed a proposal to analyze the presence of teaching under the framework of communities of inquiry.
They considered these major roles: experience design,
the facilitation and co-creation for the conduct of an
active social environment, the mastery of subject that
would allow students to have a direct instruction. Its
reliability was tested by the bases of Kappa obtaining a
high level of consistency. The work of Duffy and
Jonassen (1992), Hillman (1994), Bonk and King
(1998), Paloff, (1999), the OECD (2001) as well as
the undeniable contributions of Garrison and
Anderson (2004) have developed a complete line of
research focusing on the process of teaching and learning in this modality. All of them provide the background underlying this work.
This study follows the line of production of knowledge covered by researchers such as Marcelo (2002),
Marcelo and Perera (2002) and Perera (2007). In this
specific case, the paper boards its analysis, linking
three relevant elements that interact in a virtual learning experience. These are: quantity and quality of
interactions, results of the learning units and quality of
final work that should account for the implementation
of these learning outcomes.
Main Question: is there a relationship between
quantity and quality of participation and interactions
that occur in asynchronous discussion forums and the
expected quality of learning in e-learning experiences
selected? In what way is it happening? The centrality
of this work concerns the search for evidence intending that it can relate the two vectors, quantity and
quality of interactions and the achievement of expected learning (reflected in the evaluations of each
module, in its self-evaluation and its final work), to
identify it all, common elements like those that are differentiating, and that allow to obtain relevant information to enhance the design, execution and evaluation
of the future educational activities in e-learning.
On one hand, there is enough evidence regarding
the analysis of discourse in asynchronous communication forums, and on the other hand there is a varied
number of studies that address the learning experience
from different angles: the model of design, didactics,
etc. However, in the studies reviewed for this article,
there is always a challenge present to inquire more
about: how do students learn through the forum? In
what way does learning occur in virtual courses and
how does it relate to the activities in the forums? How
can we enhance the value of building knowledge and
learning with others by e-learning? (Schrire, 2006;
Fainholc, 2006, De Wever, 2006; Perera, 2007).
2. Material, methods and sample
This research was carried out through a descriptive study to investigate the presence and type of rela© ISSN: 1134-3478 • e-ISSN: 1988-3293• Pages 131-138
tionship between two variables: the variable participaThe three dimensions that constitute this model
tion/interaction in asynchronous discussion forums,
are: the cognitive dimension, the social and didactic
and the variable quality of learning expected. This
dimension. Each one contains subcategories of the
variable is reflected in: qualifications of the learning
structured analysis as follows:
modules and quality of the final project or work where
The cognitive dimension looks to identify through
they could identify the applications and transfers of
sustained dialogue on the forums, discourse units
these through its implementation.
which reflect the capacity of participants to develop,
We analyzed two variables: analysis of participabuild and express their thoughts.
tion / interaction and quality
of learning expected in a kind
of descriptive research that
seeks to explain whether
occurring and how it is established the relationship between these variables in virtual learning experiences of
similar level. The analysis is
performed through twodimensional paradigms using
qualitative (discourse analysis, analysis of the quality of
learning expected) and quanTable 1. Cognitive dimension and its categories.
tity (frequency of intervention
and achievement by learning
modules). After this analysis, four cases are set to deeFor this dimension, the initiation of dialogue, the
pen maximum variability in the description that
search for information or ideas that could favor the
explains the relationship between variables that must
solution (if it is a problem) or the possibility of new
comply with: 1) scores on the learning modules, 2) disways to resolve the situations they face in creative and
course in the discussion forums, 3) quality of discourse
innovative processes, is the reason for focalizing this
(discourse analysis), 4) quality of learning in observadimension. The interaction in the teaching-learning
ble actions (final working drawing), 5) self-assessment
process could not be conceivable without the presen(post training).
ce of this dimension, since it is precisely where the
Three main reasons motivated the decision to take
manifestation lies in the thought process and the builthe model of discourse analysis as proposed by the
ding students transmit through language, expressed in
team of Anderson, Garrison, Archer, and Rourke from
this case, in their interventions realized in the discusthe University of Alberta (Canada) (Anderson, 2001;
sion forums.
Garrison, 2003.)
The social dimension is a fundamental element in
The first reason, has to do with informed analysis
this system of categories of discourse analysis, because
based on three criteria established as standards of quait allows identifying those elements on the expression
lity of available models (De Wever, 2006) and the
of feeling of the participants. In this dimension situaresults observed by researchers, the solid theoretical
framework of this model, the solid arguments of the
same, the considerations relating to the defined unit of
analysis, and finally the good results of reliability were
the main elements to consider in model selection.
The second with the background work that the
authors had done on this model and the last in the inteTable 2. Social dimensión and its categories.
rest of continuing the line of research generated
through this IDEA group scheme, which has its roots
since 2004 and adds to this line of research a different
tions are valued where «the person» is expressed as
vision or look from those been considered so far in this
such and therefore offers an opportunity for a relawork.
tionship beyond cognition, where the feelings are
© ISSN: 1134-3478 • e-ISSN: 1988-3293• Pages 131-138
Comunicar, 35, XVIII, 2010
133
Comunicar, 35, XVIII, 2010
134
involved and there is set up a social space for learning
to give cohesion and strength in the working group.
Finally, the didactic dimension, which is focused
on results obtained in the cognitive process and social
interaction. This dimension permits to identify situations where they expose new questions, react to the
interventions of others, the responses are scaled to sort
and to synthesize a common conclusion. Natural to
the process of teaching and learning, this dimension
detects, organizes and systematizes all the evidence
offered by the speech held at the forum, to consolidate
Table 3. Teaching dimension and its categories.
learning expected in students.
3. Sample:
Between 2005 and 2007 research was undertaken to analyze the expected learning participation as
an object of study taking courses in e-learning at the
University of Sevilla (Schalk, 2007). Based on this
argument, we specify the sample to this research in:
Analysis Group 1 (version since October 2005 to June
2006); Analysis Group 2 (version since October 2006
to June 2007); Analysis Group 3 (version since
October 2006 to June 2007) and Analysis Group 4
(version Master degree since October 2006 to June
2007).The academic certification was an Expert Level
for the groups 1, 2 and 3, and its duration was 280
formation hours. The Master degree included 340
training hours taught in two years. The first year was
the Expert level.. The total number of participants are
171: students, invited teachers, tutors and director. All
of them were distributed in the following way: Group
1 (Expert 2005) had 65 people. Group 2, had 51 participants; Group 3, 31 participants; and Group 4
(Master Degree Group) 26 participants.The sample
selected to analyze the discussion forums were all of
them where the students and teachers (including
tutors like as) interacted. For this reason the sample
was of 55 asynchrony communication forums interaction generated 10,299 messages unit analyzed made
by 171 participants. For cases (those of maximum
variability) the fulfillment of the following requirements was considered: dimensions of discourse found
in each participant; dynamics of such participation /
interaction / interactivity (map of interventions); to
have all their evaluations of the modules, to have the
13 criteria for assessment of their final work and to
have their answers to the self-assessment instrument.
4. Results
E-learning is a form of computer-mediated learning, which is based on interactivity, and this is facilitated through the design and implementation of experiences based on constructivist theory (individual and
social), through the formation of communities of
inquiry-all for the development of critical thinking that
enable better and higher quality of learning outcomes.
In turn, this can be analyzed through discourse and
interaction in the areas of communication (in this
study, referring to asynchronous communication).
Analyzing it is complex and multifaceted.Therefore, to
understand their relationship and impact on learning is
not affordable in a linear fashion, so:
• How are distributed contributions of students in
the forums of the courses chosen, according to the
profile of the actors?
In all courses included in this study, we can demonstrate that participation of the tutors in the activity
of interaction in the asynchronous communication spaces is about 30% and that the primary interaction focused on the students (70%) and therefore it can be said
that it is mainly them who are the agents. The interventions of the tutors in all these experiences did not
exceed 100 per module, even when the dynamics of
interaction between students was significantly different in the three expert-level experiences. Along the
same lines and in almost all cases analyzed, the more
increased activity of students, the greater involvement
of the tutors. That is, in presenting these results we
can establish a bidirectional link between the activity of
the tutor for the facilitation of speech and activity of
the students that energizes the tutors involvement.
An important aspect is that when people or styles
are combined in one same group or version of a course, the dynamics of participation is higher because of
the nature of the people who agree on a course, so
© ISSN: 1134-3478 • e-ISSN: 1988-3293• Pages 131-138
much so that even the questions and the most technimodel of discourse analysis in this study, we propose
cal aspects, that generally tend to clarify the chain of
that for learning to occur in the e-learning there should
communication, allow in the same way, an active relabe a significant relationship between two variables.
tionship between students. However, although this
That is, it is expected that in a virtual environment,
aspect needs to be considered, so far, in the same way
people «learn more and better if they interact actively
as in the present education, it is a very hazardous proin their learning experience with others. However, this
file of people converging on a training activity. That is,
study shows that students can learn and are able to
it directly impacts the dynamics of participation, but
«do» or perform important procedures, without necesthis situation is not controllable.
sarily requiring to be with others, build with others or
• Does the nature of the learning content directly
learn from others.
influence the quantity and quality of participation and
• How can we set the participation of students
interactions?
and their distribution according to the structure of
Through the obtained results it can be shown that
categories of analysis chosen?
there exists a direct relationship between the amount of
Delving into discourse analysis, we conclude that
participation and the type of learning content and that
the experiences chosen contain a high level of social
when the content is procedural in nature students tend
dimension, as it is the most concentrated in the speech
to go to the forum for specific
questions and get answers
almost without any unequivoIt is suggested that training in e-learning integrates different
cal evidence that might address
differently the same procedure.
learning styles, which currently and increasingly, technology
• Is it possible to establish a
makes possible, to develop pedagogical models aimed at
relationship between the
amount of participations in the
developing multiple intelligences, to build knowledge
forums and the evaluation
through various channels of information processing, promote
results obtained by the stuthe use of collaborative tools that the Web 2.0 already has
dents?
The evidence found in the
available, open web spaces and encourage the intra-network
experiences of three of the four
works, making the interaction be meaningful, understandable
activities selected for the study,
is that through the means of
and valuable to students in terms of what they need to learn.
participation and the grades
expected in learning in each of
the training modules, there is a
very large variability in participation rates and yet, it
frequencies. After this dimension the didactic one, alappears that the learning achieved, reflected in averathough only for the 2005 version, was higher than the
ge scores for the modules are between a 6 and 10
social one, but not significantly, but for other courses it
rating except in two occasions where both average
would be to follows this educational dimension in the
ratings corresponded to the lowest participation averapresence and frequency. In the end, the cognitive
ges. However the relationship between the participadimension is set, which is significantly lower in presention and the learning expected in each module was of
ce of all courses. A frequency behaviour of the diffea high variability and what can be inferred by contrasrent dimensions can be noticed that is consistent betting the performance of all of the averages of both
ween groups. In all of them there is a significantly prevariables is that, the highest level of participation reavalent social and didactic presence, while the cognitive
ched the highest level grade and the lowest level of pardimension stays of less importance.
ticipation was the lowest level grade which allows to
This level of analysis leads to formulate what the
conclude that there exists a positive relationship betwestudy of Perera, (2007) concluded: the need to strengen both variables.
then the processes of collaborative learning where the
• Is there a relationship between the amount of
tutor can enhance personal communication and proparticipating and the evaluation of the expected learmote a sense of community learning, where activities
ning assessment?, Which?
may generate or devise suppelemntary activities that
According to the grounded theory that holds the
allow to construct knowledge together with the course
© ISSN: 1134-3478 • e-ISSN: 1988-3293• Pages 131-138
Comunicar, 35, XVIII, 2010
135
Comunicar, 35, XVIII, 2010
136
content, giving the opportunity to go to different students to make commitments to revitalize the forums, it
is necessary to promote a high degree of interactivity
among students, not so much the participation of individual responses, but in the generation of common responses which invites students to look from different
perspectives at the problem or content and also to
ensure that participation is an opportunity for interactivity by encouraging the development of critical and
creative thinking. And that, definitely lies with the
tutor’s role as a model of interaction. Such interventions result in mobilization of discourses as proposed
by Lipman (1991) more than a decade ago: soliciting
arguments that apply to the participation, looking for
examples, giving counter-examples, doing exercises of
evaluation and weight of the arguments, looking for
applications and validating generalizations, detecting
false generalizations, analyzing the part-whole relation
and vice versa, etc.
In this sense it is concluded that there does exist a
more didactic presence and cognitive modeling by
tutors, the students are also motivated and find a sense
of interaction as part of extended learning. Let’s make
it clear, that this study does not devalue the contribution that brings the social dimension in the process of
interaction and virtual learning, so it is argued in conclusion, that there must be a balance, with increasing
trend in presence of the other two dimensions which
may favor the social construction of knowledge and
there may be a better relationship between the quality
of learning and interaction.
The previous argues against the obtained results in
which students report a high level and more permanent presence and frequency in all courses and all
dimensions analyzed. If the tutor facilitates, guides,
promotes and participates in search and social construction of learning where critical and creative thinking
are manifested through the exchange achieved in an
environment of «community of inquiry or learning»
then, students have the pedagogical conditions needed
to continue a constructive dialogue, production and
development in the quality of their learning.
The tutors reported a weak and very low cognitive presence unlike students who show an ongoing
activity in this dimension, even if this dimension is
where they could be expected to guide, stimulate,
Figure 1. Qualitative analysis and most recurrent thematic in discourse.
© ISSN: 1134-3478 • e-ISSN: 1988-3293• Pages 131-138
shape, and take the necessary decisions to raise the
quality of the discourse and interaction in terms of the
learning expected.
However, to establish or conclude that the responsibility of interaction rests entirely on the tutors
would be wrong. If you expect students to be active
participants in a community of inquiry through the
forums and keep an interactive dialogue, it is necessary
to provide an educational effort intended to develop
basic skills of written communication which makes it
more complex, which itself requires an effort of teaching for the development of a community of inquiry
for critical and reflective thinking.
The most recurrent themes in the speech content
of the forums can be seen in the diagram of categories.
In the forums of learning modules, there are two
large groups of subjects identified: those associated
with dialogues that deal with the content itself, (which
are almost always present in modules 1-6 for all courses and modules 7 and 8 of the product B) and those
that apply to the use, techniques or ways of doing or
incorporating the use of tools (both routine technology
and in the education) that are more significantly present in the modules of the product A and in modules 9
in front of the product B. In the case of the Master, the
modules related to declarative learning content, concepts and ideas (for example, the introduction to
SCORM standards) belong to the first group of this
analysis, and modules referring to «procedures» (with
the same example, create and implement data and
metadata of the created virtual material) would be
contained in the second group of topics related to how
to do things.
As noted in the analysis of the previous results, a
direct relationship is found between the type of content to learn and the quality and form of interaction
that develops between the participants, so that the themes that are geared towards the use of technology
tools was lower than the other subjects, and also had
a speech quality with less presence of social and cognitive dimensions and more toward teaching and specific questions to solve problems associated with the
use of it (where it was expected that responses would
fall more in the tutorial).
5. Discussion
On the planning and design of a course, the studies of Hara and others (2000) analyze how technologies and the ALN (Asynchronous Learning Networks) can support the development of higher-order
cognitive functions, transforming education, creating
environments more focused on the students to interact
© ISSN: 1134-3478 • e-ISSN: 1988-3293• Pages 131-138
with peers (critical thinking). Moreover, they suggest
that ALN support constructivist learning because they
allow students to articulate, read and reflect on concepts, as well as deferring this communication allows
students to have control over the reflection. Therefore, these aspects must remain present in the forming
of structure, design and development of virtual training
activities. This constructivism must intentionally develop activities, learning goals and facilities to promote
interaction and social construction of knowledge
(Jiménez & Llitjós, 2006).
It is suggested that training in e-learning integrates
different learning styles, which currently and increasingly, technology makes possible, to develop pedagogical models aimed at developing multiple intelligences, to build knowledge through various channels of
information processing, to promote the use of collaborative tools that the Web 2.0 already has available, to
open web spaces and to encourage the intra-network
works, making the interaction meaningful, understandable and valuable to students in terms of what they
need to learn.
Another option, when planning, is how to form
groups of convergence (training, of initial competitions
of interest, by choice) to enable effective discussion
and exchange of ideas that are constructive for the
members but combining it with other spaces «virtual
community» where all participants are integrated into
a common interaction and reducing the risk of being
permanently beginning the process of virtual community for each of these groups that are formed for the
work of learning.
In this aspect where the interaction is a direct element of learning in e-learning, we think of the questions we should ask and rethink when designing an elearning activity: how will we take care of those who
come to these experiences without this referred competition «technique»? How will we make them learn
in the same way than the others? How will we detect
them, support them and facilitate their development?
In the field or level of implementation and specifically on the tutor mentoring, as seen in this and other
studies, it is necessary to facilitate the approach to content and information, where it focuses on the learning
process (Brown, 2003). However, there are other factors that influence the virtual interaction, and that
should be considered to facilitate and participate in this
process.
These elements or features are as those suggested
by Pallof and Pratt (1999) the ability to provide a
speech that builds knowledge, that develops cognitive
and creative skills in students, that provides the ability
Comunicar, 35, XVIII, 2010
137
Comunicar, 35, XVIII, 2010
138
to share the learning, to negotiate, to solve problems
and to raise new visions of a problem, to be part of a
community of inquiry, and especially to be able to be
an element of a «builder» of that community.
The close relationship between the individual and
the collective world (or shared) is the difference which
falls between a mediated learning experience and the
technology based on the exchange, cooperation and
reconstruction of knowledge starting from the interaction. On this basis, it is important to consider that the
interaction between teachers and students cannot be
analyzed separately and thus the process of interaction
should be viewed in a unified manner. The implications of these principles of the theory result in important implications for understanding how learning
occurs in e-learning.
If the interaction is a unified process that is permanently defined, orientated and transformed according
to what the tutors and students do, then while enquiring how learning occurs and the impact of interaction
on it, it reveals a need not only to analyze student activity (which is expected to obtain the learning awaited)
but also what happened with the tutors to produce
them. And this study can offer a well-defined explanation of how this process occurs and how to strengthen
the presence of a more reflective and critical discourse
that enables the consolidation of a community of
inquiry that promotes social interaction, but that projects towards learning levels at a greater scope for students. With regards to the evaluation, the student and
the tutor or teacher should establish criteria based on
assessment feedback, collaborative learning, on the
self-evaluation of active learning, where the role of students in the process of social construction of knowledge is considered as an indicator of quality standards.
References
ANDERSON, G. (2004). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
ANDERSON, T.; ROURKE, L. & GARRISON, D. (2001). Assessing Teaching Presence. Asynchronous Text-Based Computer Conferencing, 5; (2-3).
CASTAÑO, C. (2003). El rol del profesor en la transición de la enseñanza presencial al aprendizaje on-line. Comunicar, 21; 49-55.
CEBRIÁN HERREROS, M. (2009). Comunicación interactiva en los
cibermedios. Comunicar, 33; 15-24.
DE WEVER, B.; SCHELLENS, T.; VALCKE, M. & VAN KEER, H.
(2006). Content Analysis Schemes to Analyze Transcripts of Online Asynchronous Discussion Groups: A Review. London: Science
Direct, Elsevier; 46; 6-28.
DUFFY, T. & JONASSEN, D. (1992). Constructivism and the Tech-
nology of Instruction. London:United States of America: LEA Editors.
FAINHOLC, B. (2006). La interactividad en la educación a distancia. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
GARRISON, D. & ANDERSON, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21th
Century. Great Britain: RoutledgeFalmer.
GARRISON, D.R.; ANDERSON, T. & ARCHER, W. (2001): Critical
Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1);
7-23.
HARA, N.; BONK, C. & ANGELI, C. (2000): Content Analysis of Online Discussion in an Applied Educational Psychology Course. Instructional Science, 28; 115-152.
HILLMAN, W. & GUNAWARDENA, A. (1994). Learner-interface Interaction in Distance Education: an Extension of Contemporary
Models and Strategies for Practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8; 30-42.
JIMÉNEZ, G. & LLITJÓS, A. (2006). Procesos comunicativos en entornos telemáticos cooperativos. Comunicar, 47; 149-154.
LIPMAN, M. (1991). Thinking in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MARCELO, C. (2002). Aprender con otros en la red. Investigando
evidencias. Zaragoza: Congreso Virtual Educa 2002.
MARCELO, C. & PERERA, V.H. (2007). Comunicación y aprendizaje
electrónico: la interacción didáctica en los nuevos espacios virtuales
de aprendizaje. Revista de Educación, 343; 381-429.
MASON, R. (1990). Computer Conferencing in Distance Education,
in BATES, A. (Ed.). Media and Technology in European Distance
Education. London: Routledge Falmer Studies in Distance Education Series.
OECD (2001). E-learning: The Partnership Challenge. Paris:
OECD.
PALLOFF, R. & PRATT, K. (1999). Building Learning Communities in
Cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
PERERA, V. (2007). Estudio de la interacción didáctica en e-learning. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.
ROURKE, L.; ANDERSON, L.; GARRISON, D. & ARCHER, W. (2001):
Methodological Issues in the Content Analysis of Computer Conference Transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Inteligence
in Education, 12; 8-22.
SCHALK, A. (2006). Modelo pedagógico para formación de adultos
en el desarrollo de competencias. Gestión en el Tercer Milenio.
UNMSM, 8, 16; Revista de Investigación de la Facultad de Ciencias Administrativas; 63-87.
SCHALK, A.E. (2007). El valor de la comunicación e interacción
asincrónica en una experiencia de formación virtual: análisis del
discurso, desarrollo de competencias y calidad del producto final
con los aprendizajes esperados. Sevilla, Programa de Experto y
Máster en E-learning de la Universidad de Sevilla.
SCHOTSBERGER, P. (2001). Classifying Forms of Synchronous Dialogue Resulting from Web-Based Teacher Professional Development. Orlando: SITE Conference.
SCHRIRE, S. (2006). Knowledge Building in Asynchronous Discussion Groups: Going Beyond Quantitative Analysis. Computer &
Education, 46; 49-70.
VAN DIJK, T.A. (2000). El discurso como interacción social, in El
discurso como interacción social. Estudios sobre el discurso II: Una
introducción multidisciplinaria. Barcelona: Gedisa; 213-262.
© ISSN: 1134-3478 • e-ISSN: 1988-3293• Pages 131-138